browser_sec_get_security_headers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only states 'Inspect' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it requires an active page, changes any state, or has side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate, so behavioral context is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the reference to browser_docs provides an external fallback without bloating the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as what headers are returned, how to interpret them, or prerequisites. The reference to browser_docs shifts information outside the description, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter details. Per calibration, a 0-parameter tool baseline is 4, and the description does not contradict or add unnecessary information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'security-related HTTP headers', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_sec_get_certificate_info. However, it does not elaborate on scope (e.g., current page headers) or which headers are considered security-related, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_sec_get_csp_violations or browser_sec_detect_mixed_content. The phrase 'see browser_docs' is a placeholder rather than an explicit usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.